Operation Barbarossa

[SLD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

Today is the 80th anniversary of Operation Barbarossa, perhaps the greatest conflagration in the history of the world. Many claim that it started out so well for the Germans only later to end in disaster. But in truth it struggled from the beginning and the Germans could never keep up with their overly ambitious timetable. Maybe if they’d started earlier they would’ve reached Moscow before the winter. Maybe if they hadn’t been distracted by Crete, they’d have had more men and supplies. But even if they’d captured Moscow, would that have ended it. Napoleon captured Moscow only to abandon it later.

I once heard a lecture from a German staff officer talking about the wargaming that the General Staff went through prior to the Operation. They figured they would destroy 100 Russian Divisions. They actually destroyed more than that. What they failed to game was the Russian ability to replace their losses.

In truth Hitler, like many other generals from Hannibal to Napoleon to Lee was a victim of his own success. Overconfident, believing in his own invincibility that the normal rules of warfare don’t apply to him, and ignoring a serious threat on his flank that he thought wasn’t important.

 

[bigfield]

Eastory has a nice visual narrative for the course of the operation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu3p7dxrhl8

Where Napoleon's army effectively marched straight from Poland to Moscow and then back again, the Germans fought the Soviets along the entire front. They fought in the north around Leningrad, to the South in Ukraine and the Caucasus, and in the centre towards Moscow. They needed to capture the Caucasus oilfields, Russia's industrial centres in Europe, and cut the Soviets off from their main resupply routes. The campaign seems insanely ambitious, and the German objective (capture everything west of the Urals) seems like it had no hope of succeeding.

The Soviet counteroffensive in 1943-1945 is also quite interesting: whereas Napoleon retreated as quickly and desperately as he could, the Germans defended the entire front with the intention of holding onto their gains. What is fascinating is that the Germans were never able to halt the Soviets; it must have been obvious from as early as 1943 that the Germans could not stop the Red Army; they were just buying time...for nothing.

 

[crazyfingers]

10W40 doesn't work in Russian winter

 

[SLD]

Eastory has a nice visual narrative for the course of the operation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu3p7dxrhl8

Where Napoleon's army effectively marched straight from Poland to Moscow and then back again, the Germans fought the Soviets along the entire front. They fought in the north around Leningrad, to the South in Ukraine and the Caucasus, and in the centre towards Moscow. They needed to capture the Caucasus oilfields, Russia's industrial centres in Europe, and cut the Soviets off from their main resupply routes. The campaign seems insanely ambitious, and the German objective (capture everything west of the Urals) seems like it had no hope of succeeding.

The Soviet counteroffensive in 1943-1945 is also quite interesting: whereas Napoleon retreated as quickly and desperately as he could, the Germans defended the entire front with the intention of holding onto their gains. What is fascinating is that the Germans were never able to halt the Soviets; it must have been obvious from as early as 1943 that the Germans could not stop the Red Army; they were just buying time...for nothing.

Reinhard Gehlen figured it out by early 1942. He knew there was no way that Germany could win against both the Soviet Union and the United States. Defeat was inevitable. But he also realized that afterwards the Soviet Union and the United States would at least be at loggerheads, if not outright warfare. Thus he gathered everything he could on the Soviet Army and made sure the data was stored securely in Western Germany. Right near where he surrendered to American troops. Smart dude. Had everything on them, weapons, small unit tactics, large scale tactics, strategic thought. Hitler grew tired of him being right all the time and dismissed him in early 1945. But that just freed him to go west. I think he really was the smartest general on either side during the war. He predicted virtually every Soviet offensive and busied himself for the next war instead of the lost cause of Nazi victory.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hitler had indeed meant to start earlier. But Mussolini attacked Greece and could not finish the job. Germany had to intervene. Hitler did not want a war going on in behind his invasion in Greece. Defeating the Greeks took two months Hitler had not counted on losing.

 

[J842P]

Eastory has a nice visual narrative for the course of the operation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu3p7dxrhl8

Where Napoleon's army effectively marched straight from Poland to Moscow and then back again, the Germans fought the Soviets along the entire front. They fought in the north around Leningrad, to the South in Ukraine and the Caucasus, and in the centre towards Moscow. They needed to capture the Caucasus oilfields, Russia's industrial centres in Europe, and cut the Soviets off from their main resupply routes. The campaign seems insanely ambitious, and the German objective (capture everything west of the Urals) seems like it had no hope of succeeding.

The Soviet counteroffensive in 1943-1945 is also quite interesting: whereas Napoleon retreated as quickly and desperately as he could, the Germans defended the entire front with the intention of holding onto their gains. What is fascinating is that the Germans were never able to halt the Soviets; it must have been obvious from as early as 1943 that the Germans could not stop the Red Army; they were just buying time...for nothing.

Yeah, Eastory is amazing. Watching the whole series is really worth it.

 

[Swammerdami]

Mention of Napoleon's campaign in Russia reminds me of Minard's famous graphic depiction. Geography, dates, place-names, and temperatures are all shown in the figure; as well as the size of Napoleon's Army. Look at the far left of the figure to see the large size of this Army when it entered Russia (in orange); compare that with the size when it finally left (in black).

Has anyone attempted such a chart for Barbarossa?

​

 

[barbos]

And Stalin's Purge of the Red Army and his general incompetence helped Hitler a lot in the beginning.
Without that WW2 would have ended much quicker.
Napoleon failed in Russia because russians figured out that burning everything out and retreating would starve his army in no time.
Hitler thought he could avoid that fate.

 

[rjh01]

Hitler had indeed meant to start earlier. But Mussolini attacked Greece and could not finish the job. Germany had to intervene. Hitler did not want a war going on in behind his invasion in Greece. Defeating the Greeks took two months Hitler had not counted on losing.

I wonder what would have happened if Hitler had delayed the invasion for 12 months and in the meantime attacked the British in African? He might have driven them out. Then at the end of 1941 the USA enters the war and Hitler should have worked out that he cannot fight both powers.

 

[steve_bank]

Hitler wrote in Mein Kemph his plan to annex part of Russia for German expansion. The Volkswagen, peole's car, was intende to be chap transportation on an envisioned super highway. The invasion was pre detined.

I once found Nazi documents online on negotiations between Stalin and Hitler. He played Stalin all the way. The Allies wrned Stalin but he thought it an Allied trick.

Hitler's mistake was leaving England standing while invading Russia. SOme Germns'a post war thought they lost the war at Dunkirk. The Brits lost their weapons' but saved a lot of troops. Complete destruction woud have crushed British mot rale. For reasons I forget Hitler did not press it.

Gering failed to destroy the RAF. When Hitler switched to civilian terror attack the RAF had time to rearm and train. A major mistake.

At the end of the Battle Of Britain the RAF was totally committed, it could have gone either way.

The Germans never had sufficient logistical transport and never had a long range heavy bomber. a or large scale air transport.

Germany was not prepared for long term total war from the start.

Barbarossa was war by attrition at the end. My jaw dropped when I first read the WWII casualty estimates. The Soviets lost around 20-30 million dead and injured. Stalingrad was utter brutality and barbarism.

The Germans could not resupply, logistics again. The Soviets moved production out of bomber range. Crews were waiting at tank factoies to drive then out.

The Russian T Tanks were designed to be simple and field maintainable. The German tanks were more complex, more breakdowns.

Rommel is the popular image of German armored warfare, but the tank tactics genius was Hans Guderian. There were points in Russia where taking initiative in the field nay have swung the outcome. Guderian pleaded with Hitler to be given more latitude to seize opportunity and was sacked a few times. Akin to Patton.

If Hitter had let his professional military staff prosecute the war it may have gone differently. Like Trump Hitlr thought he always knew best, and like Trump was paranoid of disloyalty and could not delegate authority.

 

[steve_bank]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk

The Battle Of Kursk was apocalyptic.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hitler wrote in Mein Kemph his plan to annex part of Russia for German expansion.

Indeed. Germany needed the Caucasus for the oil fields to fuel their military. Lack of fuel was a serious problem that Germany dealt with throughout the war. Rommel may have won in North Africa if he had had sufficient fuel. The Battle of the Bulge could have had a different outcome if the German tank crews had not had to abandon their tanks and walk away for lack of fuel.

The Volkswagen, peole's car, was intende to be chap transportation on an envisioned super highway. The invasion was pre detined.

Those are two goals that Hitler did meet. The Volkswagen was a great success. And then Germany's super highway system (the autobahn) impressed Eisenhauer so much when he saw it after the war that he pushed through the Interstate Highway bill when he became president.

 

[steve_bank]

I am a baby boomer wo grew up watching the old WWII movies.

When I read books on WWII in the 90s it was clear the outcomes were not predetermined. All sides made blunders. The Alies learned and adapted, the Japanese and Germans did not.

Luck was part of it. If the fleets at Midway were on slightly different courses and speeds the Japanese may have found the Americans first.

The British code breakers were reading the German naval codes, and they used it judiciously to avoid tipping off the Germans. Fuel ships to Africa were being intercepted.

I don't think much of Montgomery, but he gets high marks for turning around British morale at El Alemein.

At the start the Germans had enough fuel for about 90 days of full scale war. Hitler correctly assessed what the Allied response would be, weak. The French were still practicing cavalry tactics. The Brits were reluctant and their navy was spread around the world.


The Ukranians initially treated the Germans as liberators.

Hitler was always working to a plan.

 

[Trausti]

To me it’s just numbers. The Soviet Union had more than twice the population of Nazi Germany. Germany could never win a war of attrition.

 

[Trausti]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk

The Battle Of Kursk was apocalyptic.

It’s one of the dumbest battles. MacArthur said: “hit ‘em where they ain’t.” Operation Citadel said: “hit ‘em where they’ve been preparing defensive positions for months.” Even if the Germans had won, how would they keep it? They’d never be able to recoup the losses in men and armor.

 

[skepticalbip]

To me it’s just numbers. The Soviet Union had more than twice the population of Nazi Germany. Germany could never win a war of attrition.

Numbers are important but not determinant. Japan overran China, Manchuria, Korea, Indo China, Malesia, Philippines, etc. even though just the population of China vastly outnumbered Japanese.

And then Alexander the Great had an army of less than 50,000 but conquered most of the known world.

 

[bigfield]

To me it’s just numbers. The Soviet Union had more than twice the population of Nazi Germany. Germany could never win a war of attrition.

I would add that the numerical advantage wasn't just in people, but also in materiel.

Only a few years later, the Korean War pitted a numerically superior force against a technologically superior one. China and the DPRK were able to push the UN force south of the 38th parallel, but their relative lack of technological sophistication forced them to rely on slow, cautious night manoeuvring and tunnel warfare, lest they get bombarded into oblivion. They could advance while the enemy was unprepared, but they couldn't encircle and destroy an opposing army. Once the UN forces set up a strong defensive line, the Communists didn't have the logistics or heavy firepower to push any further.

This suggests that the Soviet victory was not guaranteed simply because they could throw a lot of soldiers at the Germans. Without the ability to move armies quickly and support them with armour and artillery, the Axis forces may have been able to repel the Red Army's offensives.

 

[steve_bank]

The Soviets had lives to spare, the tactic was mass attack.

Stalin made a non aggression pact with Hitler in exchange for part of Poland and Norway I think.

IMO the Russians got just what they bargained for. Stalin rejected aligning with the Allies. In a sense he may have enabled Hitler, would Hitler have started the war if he knew Russia would fight with the Allies?

If Russia quickly lost, would the Allies have prevailed in Europe?

Stalin was no better than Hitler, he was eyeing Eastern Europe pre war. The NKVD was no better than the Gestapo and the SS.

 

[Swammerdami]

Thanks for this thread! I'm learning much.

IMO the Russians got just what they bargained for. Stalin rejected aligning with the Allies. In a sense he may have enabled Hitler, would Hitler have started the war if he knew Russia would fight with the Allies?

IIUC, Stalin wanted to join the Anglo-French alliance after Czechoslovakia was attacked, and Roosevelt was pushing for that also. France and Britain refused because allying with Russia would have led to Stalin's de facto annexation of countries like Hungary and Romania. Those countries feared Stalin more than they feared Hitler.

 

[J842P]

IMO the Russians got just what they bargained for. Stalin rejected aligning with the Allies. In a sense he may have enabled Hitler, would Hitler have started the war if he knew Russia would fight with the Allies?

You have it exactly backwards. Stalin begged for years for an alliance with the Western powers against Hitler. Indeed, by the time Germany invaded Czechoslovakia Stalin was on the cusp of a tripartite pact with Britain and France. It fell apart because in effect it would have formalized the Baltic States being part of the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, and also dicey was allowing a Soviet military presence in Romania and Poland.

No doubt, the Soviets knew Germany would want to invade the Soviet Union. Hitler spoke about it plainly, and railed against Jewish Bolshevism, as well as denouncing the Slavic peoples as "Untermenschen", and wrote plainly about how the Slavic lands were the rightful bounty of the Aryan people.

I think Stalin honestly thought the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact would have bought him more time, but I doubt anyone in the USSR thought the Germans were never going to attack. Everyone knew it was a matter of time, and the Soviets used that time to try to prepare for the invasion. Of course, clearly, not enough. People also forget that the USSR was wary of the Japanese and the possibility of their own two-front war.